Jimbo

If so, why?

Do Christians today give any thought to the monophysitism on Nestorius? Is it troubling that a ridiculous accident of history lead to this (quite important) heresy?

As one of the great philosphers of early Christianity, if Boethius did reject it for paganism on his deathbed would that make paganism superior to Christianity?

...why did the good Samaritan pour it on the man he helped?

If by resting on the 7th day we are to believe that God instigated the concept of the week, are we then to suppose that he went back and recreated the world on the 8th-13th days? Or has he been "resting" ever since?

In all honesty, would you be irritated if God, as our loving father and creator, decided to forgive all sins, regardless of whether we repented or believed?

Given that the only accounts that we have of Jesus are contradictory and historically unreliable, it is clear that there is a lot of room for people to take their own message from his reported teachings. Personally I like to think of Jesus as a deeply secular humanist philospher, but I appreciate that there are several statements attributed to him which contradict this. To what extent do you consider this to be a reasonable perspective, and what do you feel to be the evidence that best supports or opposes it? Is there anything more conclusive in the non-canonical gospels, for instance?

Thanks for your views!

In answers to previous questions, I have been warned against the dangers of trying to impose anthropic characteristics onto God. If, however, God does not conform to our anthropocentric perspective, it seems that we are unable to understand him. Indeed, this is something I have been explicitly told. How, then, can one form a personal relationship (as again I am advised to do) with a being that is fundamentally and deeply incomprehensible?

I appreciate that this question may appear inflammatory, but I hope to convince you that I have a serious point. Since God seems to claim to be the definition of righteousness, does that mean that every word of praise for what he does in the Bible is tantamount to self-righteousness? Or, if the Bible is purely the work of man, does God's demanding our worship amount to nothing more than a definition?

If I have free will, then I have the right to decide not to exist. God deprives me of this right by creating me. By what authority does he do so?

Modern politics undoubtedly owes a lot to Plato's republic, and not least to his notion that a founding basis of a well run/deferential society must be some sort of agreed mythology that is propagated. Whilst of course this notion came after many religions were established, is it possible that it has influenced religious thinking? Perhaps at the early ecumenical church councils?

There are plenty of reasons not to believe in the Christian God, but for me one of the most important is the simple failure of the God we are supposed to believe to be 'love' to do anything even remotely loving in all the Old Testament. Could it be, however, that it is the statement 'God is love' which is at fault, and in fact God is simply a cruel dictator who created us as his playthings?

In the New Testament, Jesus is alleged to have made the rather bold claim that the old covenant was ended and a new one began. I really don't understand the theological reasoning behind this. Politically, it makes perfect sense that a radical (Jesus) would move from a prescriptive, dogmatic, slightly contradictory ethical code to a more interpretative, humanist, rational one. Theologically, however, this seems to fly in the face of the supposed 'omniscience' and 'omnipotence' of God. How does Christian philosophy answer this question?

Could a copycat killer copy the Book of Genesis?

Should the Bible be banned to keep the peace?

I know that is a statement, the questions are do you agree with it, and why is the principle 'judge not that ye be not judged' so overlooked by Christianity generally, and certain denominations/individuals in particular?

Or is it little more than social condition that makes it seem that way to me?

I know far more women who would be happy to kiss another woman, or even to have sex with one, than I know men who'd kiss another man. And most of the men that I know who would do it aren't that keen on kissing women. Does this mean that more women are somewhat bi-sexual than men, or are they just less inhibited? Or is the whole thing merely social conditioning?

Thanks for your thoughts!

It is something that I have often wondered. I am personally firmly tied to the importance of monogamy and 'love', and find the misogyny that seems to have accompanied historical instances of polygamy repellent. But I can't help wondering if a purer form, as demonstrated by Gorillas, for example, night not be more in keeping with our natures. Any thoughts?

Why should I assume that that gives him the right to judge me, and to demand my worship?

I apologise to anyone who has answered this question before. I am just hoping for some thoughts about this.

Or just the Qu'ran/Mohammed? Also, I heard that it was also a Talmudic principle, is this true?